Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 09:51 AM 9/14/99 , Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>Depending on what our goals for the test-bed are, rgTLDs (really generic

Viewing this as entirely experimental and focusing only on some narrow 
operational details leaves essential market and customer issues 
untested.  Viewing this as reversible creates an entirely unviable customer 
scenario.  Folks aren't likely to hand over money if that have any concerns 
that their registration will be reversed.

The first phase must be treated as a permanent step forward, the same as 
for every other TLD and registry that has been added.

Reasonable variables to inspect include choice of registry administrator -- 
these do get changed periodically, such as when NSI was handed 
administrative responsibility for com/net/org, after SRI created and ran 
them for about 6 years -- and the rate at which gTLD registries can be added.

Since there is long history adding registries (remember that there are some 
220+ registries already) the pure mechanics are not of significant concern.

>TLDs) can be extremely useful. They will allow us to quickly and effectively
>judge the technical and operation impact of a multiple gTLD registry
>scenario, while at the same time allowing the participants to easily
>repurpose their infrastructure when the testbed ends. Further, it minimizes

If the participants aren't doing real registrations, they won't be testing 
the customer support portion of their service and that is the most 
challenging aspect of their business.  Worse, customers won't bother to 
register if they believe the name will disappear, just as they won't 
register if they find the gTLD string irrelevant.


At 10:49 AM 9/14/99 , Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>a different spin on it - it minimizes my concerns about restraint of trade.

We have an obligation to develop as fair and open a system as is reasonable.

We do not have an obligation to attend to every effort at subverting this 
process, to give special favor to one self-interested group or another, or 
to quake in our collective boots every time someone tries to bully us.

The best advise I ever got from an attorney was to focus on real work, 
rather than to live in constant fear of lawsuits.  Lawsuits happen.  No 
matter how careful one is, they happen.

Focus on the real work, not the efforts to sow fear.

 > What about the objective of ascertaining the acceptance of/demand for new
> > gTLDs?  Doesn't the marketplace have some impact on whether there should
> > be new gTLDs and how many there should be?
>
>I submit that this is something that the market can determine for itself.

If the evaluation period does not use names that are expected to be 
competitive, then we learn nothing about real demand.  "The market" is not 
a magical force of self-organizing self-will.  It is a process that must be 
engaged realistically.

>This is contingent on allowing the registry to select their gTLD as part of

Ah.  Now we get to a serious and deep issue.  Whence cometh names?  I 
strongly urge treating that as a separate thread.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>